Talk:Canada

Archives
	2003–2005 1 2 3 4 5 6 2006 7 8 9 10 2007 11 12 13 14 15 2008 16 17 18 2009 19 2010 20 2011 21 2012 22 2013 23 2015–present 24 25 26 27 Discussion of Canada's official name Canada's name Official Name 1 Future TFA paragraph Main Page ;

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29: 14 days

Canada is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 23, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 6, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
May 25, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Spoken Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Canada Top‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry

WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy.
Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region.
Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

Template:WP1.0

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria.

Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly.

If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage Template:Canada selected article

Notice: Before you edit the article PLEASE READ the following.

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The Canada article is already too long (oversized) and should serve only as an introduction for topics on Canada in general. To keep this overview article concise, please consider adding information instead to one of the many "main" articles about individual topics that link from this article, e.g. History of Canada, Culture of Canada, Canadian football etc. See Index of Canada-related articles for a complete listing of topics. Why? see Wikipedia:Article size. Thank you.

Nunavit is now the eleventh province of Canada

The article is dated and does not reflect the new province of Nunavit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.33.76 (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First it is spelled Nunavut, secondly it is considered a territory not a province. Kyle1278 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle's right on both counts. But to add two more: thirdly, it is mentioned in the article, and fourthly, it isn't new. I think the only word of truth in 70's entire statement is "article". Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. -Rrius (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Collapsed nonsense facilitated by vandal

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

caro_08Hello,i'm canadian and as you know;today,it's the beginning of the olympic games in Vancouver. On the page Canada,i would like to add images of largest canadian cities.By example,1-Toronto,with a photo of Toronto.2-Montreal,with a photo of Montreal.With the photos,i would accompany a little text,a parragraph,that describe the largest cities in Canada.Thank you! Moved from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Canada/archive1 on behalf of User:Caro 08. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caro, it looks like there is already a list of largest metropolitan areas in Canada under the demographics section, I don't think I agree another list of "largest cities" should be added... As for putting in pictures for each of them, I don't think it's practical to have a picture of each (or even the top 10), but maybe a selection could be added in a gallery format to the demographics section like is done here in the US article. TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW ok images all messed up...deleted ..not caro_08 fault....BUT caro pls tell us what you are trying to do..and maybe we can help....Today is Olympic games day and is not a good time to test edit the page since we can anticipate lost of view in the next weeks..Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have replaced the deleted images ....but we should talk about if they are ok!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not need an extensive gallery of images of all of Canada's largest cities. For one thing, the article is already too long, and already contains too many, rather than not enough, photos. The photos might be appropriate elsewhere, but they don't belong here and Caro8 needs to stop this. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i agree...some one has just removed them all..he did not give Edit summary...but i do think it looks better..i just did not want red links on the page specialty today ...I like this last editors boldness!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.I worked 4 hours on it and now,it is deleted.I'm frustrated...What i was trying to do,it's to increase Canadian tourism by adding a little parragraph with images of largest Canadian cities.I did't deleted something that was already on the page.I just added something.I will retry the samething,for the reason,i repeat:To increase Canadian tourism by adding beautiful images of Canadian cities with a little parragraph about the Canadian touristic places. Thank You!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caro 08 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of wikipedia is not tourism promotion, it is an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Caro 08 ..great effort ...but lets talk a bit more about this...pls hold off on your edits for now!!!..We have sizing issues on the page ..lets give other some time to comment here first pls... We do not mean to frustrate you, but the layout of the page should be discussed and agreement made first before massive changes...Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! i understand what you mean!I will retry the samething i did,with a little parragraph that describe the canadian population.If you want,i can delete the chart that describe the canadian population and to do what i did with the pictures.This would be more interesting! Thank you verry much!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caro 08 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC) I understand what you mean,i will retry the samething i did.with a little parragraph that describe the canadian population.If you want,i can delete the chart that describe the canadian population and to do what i did with the pictures.This would be more interesting! Thank you very much to answer me!Caro 08 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not do that. TastyCakes (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian population

Hi,i would like to edit the page Canada by adding a little parragraph that explain the Canadian population.With it,i would add 7 pictures of Canadian cities.This would be like that:1-Toronto(with a picture of Toronto),2-Montréal(with a picture of Montréal)... I thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caro 08 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there is clear consensus that the page already has too many pictures and is too long, and so the pictures you are adding are inappropriate Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!.Caro 08 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err... I'd like to attach a condition to that. You can do it at least temporarily so that other editors can see how it looks. If they think it negatively affects the article it could be changed or reverted, and you'll need to discuss things with them here. 7 images seems like a lot, that's my primary concern. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:00, 13 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that a paragraph describing the Canadian cities' populations isn't constructive. We already have the data presented clearly in a table, which allows easy comparison; what is gained by having them also listed in a paragraph? Also, it seems as though there is a bit of consensus on the article already having enough/too many pictures as it is. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caro, it sounds pretty similar to what you were putting in before, and I don't think those were constructive additions to the article. The demographics section already "explains the Canadian population", what will your addition improve on? I think there is space to reasonably add two or three city pictures to the demographics section, but I think seven will overwhelm the article. TastyCakes (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that three editor comments above were altered by Caro 08 to make them seem favourable to their request. Original versions are now restored. Franamax (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right.Thank you!Caro 08 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK we cant have you deleting big portions of text Caro 08!!!Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is getting confusing now. I've reinstated the block on Caro 'til we get this sorted out. Can someone else make whatever changes it is they want? Their diff's make it impossible to see what is happening but if the article size gets smaller it's usually not a good thing. Franamax (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date formats

Hello guys i am not sure if the "Date formats" section in navbox is all messed up from all the reverts ...but i cant find a version with that section done properly ...any help here would be great!|date_format = dd-mm-yyyy, mm-dd-yyyy, ''and'' yyyy-mm-dd ([[Common Era|CE]])...Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian population by city

Hi,i would like to edit Canada by adding a little text about the population per Canadian city.With it,i would add 7 images of largest Canadian cities.Like that:1-Toronto(with a photo of Toronto,with its population),2-Montréal(with a picture of Montréal,with its population)...Notice that i won't delete any paragraph or thing that were already on the page Canada,so don't worry!!

Why do you need to add that when there is already a list of largest municipal districts in the demographics section? You never explained that, and if you go back to doing what you were doing before, you're going to get blocked again because you haven't properly explained yourself. TastyCakes (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK i won't add the text,but just the photos.Thank you!Caro 08 (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will looks like that:1-Toronto(with a photo of toronto,with its population) 2-Montréal(with a photo of Montréal,with its population)... Thank you!Caro 08 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain first, Caro, and get the consensus of everyone here, before editing again. Your last edit removed over 8 kilobytes of content. Can you explain how this fits into your plan for the article? Equazcion ^(talk) 23:33, 16 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I still do not see what this adds. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caro has been blocked indefinitely, so it appears to be a moot issue for now. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:37, 17 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Economy Debt-to-GDP

I believe the debt-to-gdp numbers in the Economy section should be updated. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently projected 09-10 ratio to be 33.9% (See http://www2.parl.gc.ca/sites/pbo-dpb/documents/EFAU_November_2009.pdf), not dropping to 19% as indicated in the article.

38.112.81.103 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

refs removed

User:Nikkimaria today removed 3 refs from the article without giving an edit summary. Thus, I am asking why here.--JimWae (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(s)he also unwikilined a bunch of stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seems this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Canada/archive1 is the reason. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did leave an edit summary, although I agree that I could have been clearer about what I was doing. The FAR reviewers have requested that we reduce the number of refs by consolidating - that is, using the same ref to support multiple points where possible. All of the refs that I removed supported information that is also supported by remaining refs. As for the delinking, it was also requested that common terms be unlinked. Feel free to drop in at the FAR if you have concerns or questions, or drop a note at my talk page. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I think some of the delinking is good. That said, New France is probably one we should have linked. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was delinked for a different reason - it's a duplicate, already linked via pipe in the lead, so there's no need to link it again. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I had not noticed that, thought I had looked closely. THanks Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the refs were just removed... without citing the other ref (from the shorter list of refs)--JimWae (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your objection. Most of my ref changes followed this format: "Sentence A.[1] Sentence B.[2]" -> "Sentence A. Sentence B.[2 - with extra page numbers if necessary]". The idea is that [2] covers the information in both sentences, eliminating the need for [1]. Could you explain your preferred formatting? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sentence A.[1] Sentence B.[1]"" - else we can soon expect "Sentence A.[citation needed] Sentence B.[1]"--JimWae (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education, science, and technology

I really think there should be a section titled "Education, science, and technology". Canada is a world leader in the science and technology field, therefore it deserves its own section on the main article. Bakersdozen77 (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vb

fsssssdssssssssssssssssssssssssaaaaaaaaassssTFRGGGGGGGGGGGG